Bleeding Heart Pork Barreling

He’s done it. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries has forced my hand. By speaking out so prolifically against the sequestration cuts, he has forced me to actually discuss his recent actions in light of this contrived controversy.

And for those of you lucky enough to have avoided this ubiquitous yet obscure controversy, here’s the extremely abbreviated version of what the sequestration is:

In order to address the federal debt, the 2011 Budget Control Act was passed in Aug. 2011 which, in part, stated that automatic cuts to defense and domestic spending would be made if legislators from both parties could not come to a deal on how to reduce the deficit by Jan. 1, 2013.

The defense cuts were designed to scare Republicans, who tend to think that you can never spend enough on the military, while the cuts to domestic social programs were supposed to strike fear in the hearts of Democrats, who tend to see themselves as stewards of the modern American welfare state.

Needless to say, Congress failed to meet the deadline.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act then extended the deadline to March 1st.

A deal by the two parties still failed to materialize, and President Obama signed the sequestration order. Now, 42.7 billion dollars in defense spending and 42.7 billion dollars in domestic programs will be automatically cut.

Rep. Jeffries seems to have taken notice of the effects that these cuts will have on his constituents. A slew of cuts to social programs that affect his district, especially funds intended for Hurricane Sandy victims, has put Rep. Jeffries on the move trying to ensure that a deal is made that doesn’t “seek to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable among us.”

What’s truly difficult to discern is whether Rep. Jeffries is motivated by an ideological adherence to American liberal welfare statism or simply by the need to be a good representative of his district by bringing back as much federal money to his constituents as he can.

His focus on cuts that will affect “Superstorm Sandy” victims leans one towards the latter at first.

Rep. Jeffries makes sure to ALWAYS refer to Hurricane Sandy as “Superstorm Sandy.” As if to further prove one of my previous posts right, the term “Superstorm” is more conducive to using Sandy as a unique disaster that requires that a special exception be made in regard to spending on Sandy relief.

Rep. Jeffries’ insistence that federal funds be used to rebuild houses of worship that were affected by Sandy also seem to point to his need to serve his constituents rather than his commitment to American liberalism as his motivation.

But on the other hand, Jeffries also signed a letter with 12 of his colleagues concerning cuts to Native American programs, including funding for the Indian Health Service (IHS) and tribal hospitals and clinics that would be affected by the sequestration. As one can imagine, the Native American population of Rep. Jeffries’ district is negligible.

Rep. Jeffries also speaks like a committed liberal when he defends social programs from being cut as a result of sequestration.

While addressing the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Jeffries stated:

So when you talk about the need to get spending under control, let’s be intellectually honest. Because when we’re not, you lay out a scenario: Well, it’s because of Social Security that we’re in this situation. That’s not the case. Well, it’s because of Medicare and entitlements that we’re in this situation. That’s not the case. Well, it’s because of Medicaid, and we have all of these takers–so-called takers–in our economy. That’s not the case.

Two wars, one of which was completely unjustified, the other of which it’s not clear whether it was prosecuted in the manner it could have been because we were distracted in Iraq; two enormous tax cuts that benefited the wealthy and the well-off disproportionately; the collapse of the economy; a subsequent Wall Street bailout; and then the need for an economic stimulus package explains why we are where we are right now.

But pork barrel politics and a liberal commitment to the welfare state may not necessarily be mutually exclusive motivations in this case. Rep. Jeffries may just be taking advantage of an issue where being a good Democrat and being a good representative for his district come together in a lot of ways.

For example, Rep. Jeffries also met with public housing leaders in his district on March 2 to discuss how sequestration cuts “could cost NYCHA 190 million in funding.” This move efficiently serves two great purposes at one time for the freshman Congressman, i.e. serving constituents and supporting liberal social programs.

Thus both his party and his constituents can rejoice in Rep. Jeffries’ actions.

In the end, Rep. Jeffries is definitely doing what is good for Rep. Jeffries. And luckily, that also happens to coincide nicely with what is good for his party and those he represents.